ArticleGastroenterology report2024
Laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing vs traditional right hemicolectomy for cancer of the hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon: a dual-center propensity score-matched study.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of safe-anastomosis digital training on 30-day anastomotic leak after right colectomy: international prospective cohort study (EAGLE-2).The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional right hemicolectomy (TRH) is the standard treatment for patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. However, the ileocecum, a vital organ with mechanical and immune functions, is removed in these patients regardless of the tumor location. This study aimed to evaluate the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing right hemicolectomy (LISH). Method: Patients who underwent LISH at two tertiary medical centers were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent TRH by propensity score matching based on sex, age, body mass index, tumor location, and disease stage. Data on surgical and perioperative outcomes were collected. Oncological safety was evaluated in a specimen-oriented manner. Lymph nodes (LNs) near the ileocolic artery (ICA) were examined independently in the LISH group. Disease outcomes were recorded for patients who completed one year of follow-up. Results: In all, 34 patients in the LISH group and 68 patients in the TRH group were matched. LISH added 8 minutes to the dissection of LNs around the ileocolic vessels (groups 201/201d, 202, and 203 LNs), without affecting the total operation time, blood loss, or perioperative adverse event rate. Compared with TRH, LISH had a comparable lymphadenectomy quality, specimen quality, and safety margin while preserving a more functional bowel. The LISH group had no cases of LN metastasis near the ICA. No difference was detected in the recurrence rate at the 1-year follow-up time point between the two groups. Conclusion: In this dual-center study, LISH presented comparable surgical and oncological safety for patients with hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.